Scan barcode
politizer's review
lighthearted
fast-paced
2.0
I've had this book on my shelf for over a decade, so when I finally picked it up in 2022 to read it I was worried that it might be very dated and no longer be of interest outside the time in which the pieces in it were written. Happily, that was not the case; many of the pieces in it are making points that are timeless, e.g. about what grammar is not, about how usages change, and about how people who seem progressive and open-minded in some areas can be totally conservative and backwards when it comes to being a prescriptive grammar maven.
That said, I still didn't get a whole lot out of it. The book is a collection of very short pieces that appeared in outlets like NPR and various newspapers; most of them do little more than make a quick observation about some interesting phenomenon. Perhaps due to the inherent limitations of this form, the pieces are generally more focused on being pithy and witty than on making a clear argument; for many of the pieces I couldn't really tell what the "point" was meant to be. The end result is that, in many pieces, I can recognize that Nunberg is being witty and trenchant, but ultimately I don't know what the message is supposed to be.
Some of the pieces are pretty good, though. I liked "Meetings of the minds", which is basically a takedown of some bs linguistic relativity claims (and takedowns of linguistic relativity nonsense is one of my favourite genres), and "There are no postmodernists in a foxhole", about how someone who's supposedly postmodern is in fact very traditional when it comes to grammar policing.
My favourite part of the book is actually the introduction, where Nunberg's considerable linguistics bona fides are most apparent. It includes a very quotable bit that's definitely going to be going into my classes from now on: "the difference between language buffs and linguists -- when the former talk about the fascination of words they're thinking of something like antimacassar or serendipity; with the latter, it's more likely and and the."
That said, I still didn't get a whole lot out of it. The book is a collection of very short pieces that appeared in outlets like NPR and various newspapers; most of them do little more than make a quick observation about some interesting phenomenon. Perhaps due to the inherent limitations of this form, the pieces are generally more focused on being pithy and witty than on making a clear argument; for many of the pieces I couldn't really tell what the "point" was meant to be. The end result is that, in many pieces, I can recognize that Nunberg is being witty and trenchant, but ultimately I don't know what the message is supposed to be.
Some of the pieces are pretty good, though. I liked "Meetings of the minds", which is basically a takedown of some bs linguistic relativity claims (and takedowns of linguistic relativity nonsense is one of my favourite genres), and "There are no postmodernists in a foxhole", about how someone who's supposedly postmodern is in fact very traditional when it comes to grammar policing.
My favourite part of the book is actually the introduction, where Nunberg's considerable linguistics bona fides are most apparent. It includes a very quotable bit that's definitely going to be going into my classes from now on: "the difference between language buffs and linguists -- when the former talk about the fascination of words they're thinking of something like antimacassar or serendipity; with the latter, it's more likely and and the."
swhuber's review against another edition
4.0
Going Nucular is an amazing collection of Nunberg's essays from 2003 on a variety of subjects involving media and political speech. He introduces a variety of new thoughts including the idea of "thinkos" expressed in his chapter "Going Nucular".
Although not as closely related to nuclear policy as one might hope given the title, it provides a wonderfully informative, often amusing account of political language. Moreover, it brings back memories of the Bush years and delightful SNL skits
Although not as closely related to nuclear policy as one might hope given the title, it provides a wonderfully informative, often amusing account of political language. Moreover, it brings back memories of the Bush years and delightful SNL skits
jiujensu's review
3.0
So this is a 20 year old book im taking in 2021 by a linguist who died in 2020. I think I found it at a thrift store and bought it for the annoying use of "nucular." I wanted to read it before I passed it on or stuck it in a little library. I didnt know who Nunberg was before this, but spent he did segments on NPR and this is a collection of them. It was a decent read, though definitely written by a white guy in the post 9/11 islamophobic era, I'll just say that. Though I will say some of his essays on pronouns made me wonder how he'd take the nonbinary pronoun usage. I looked up a more recent essay and good for him, he accepted it. I hope he'd have learned as much about his racism (arab things and Islam was alien to him) and ableism (get back on one's meds) in 20 years, though i didn't look that up.
The word nucular. What we've been waiting for. The author's friend who uses the mispronunciation only says it with weapons, not "nucular family," indicating a choice -- a thinko, not a typo. The speculation on various presidents' usage scratched an itch too.
In the first chapter: "That's what predestination comes down to in these postmeritocratic times; it's a matter of going through the motions of equal access at the same time you're frantically trying to game the system."
So naturally, i agree and am drawn in.
The whole chapter Prurient Interests is a great one. If we used a clear common word like "dirty" this legal definition of obscenity that includes prurient sounds ridiculous. That was what i gathered, but the author and i may have different experiences with regard to how the whole chastity thing (purity culture?) affected us.
Beleaguered Infidels was a bit embarrassing. He didn't grow up in the church setting i did - they threw around infidel all the time. His ignorance of jihad may have been just characteristic of the early 2000s, but he could've done better.
In Foreign Parts, he's not bothered by journalists messing up "exotic" Arabic place names, which comes off a bit racist. He notes the French do fine with it. I would ask him, then why let us off the hook??
P121 Orwellian!! People just discussed this attempted adoption by the right a bd how they don't even mean 1984-esque. This article discusses how the term means 1984 dystopia rather than like Orwell the socialist.
P135 Where the Left Commences- as interesting a discussion now as in 2003.
P166 Discussing patriotism (always interesting) and how Abbie Hoffman at the HUAC was arrested for wearing a US flag shirt and now pro war demonstrators dress in all manner of flag paraphernalia. "...hard to tell a patrotic demonstration from a gathering of Oakland Raiders fans." He concludes by saying bring back the term, but I disagree. I always like essays of what patriotism is to us.
P165 Still in The Last Refuge of Scoundrels and Other People, it's funny that he gets that McCarthyism held every left wing activity un-American but he appears to have a disdain for "tantrums of flag burning" during the Vietnam war protests.
P168 Pledge Break. As with patriotism, there's plenty of material to mull over in the pledge. Like "under God." Why it was added and how the pledge resembles the loyalty oath southerners had to swear. And the French phrase that was nixed. Mostly it's fine that no one knows what it means definitively. "As Eric Hobsbawn once observed, patriotic rituals are indebted to provide the emotional signs of membership in a club, not its bylaws."
P175 Rush Limbaugh's Plurals. Well, something he thinks isn't racist definitely is. White men aren't good at assessing that. But the main point is good on tv vs radio.
There's an interesting if dated assessment of the Internet in the early 2000s. It's kind of cute. Funny to read 20 years later. It's not all wrong, but a lot has changed. Also he asserts pretty offensively that people who put stuff online in blogs and such don't have a life.
---
Other than some racism and odd, outdated notions like America still rewards dedication and hard work, this is still a fun look at how the meanings of words change or can mean contradictory things through time.
The word nucular. What we've been waiting for. The author's friend who uses the mispronunciation only says it with weapons, not "nucular family," indicating a choice -- a thinko, not a typo. The speculation on various presidents' usage scratched an itch too.
In the first chapter: "That's what predestination comes down to in these postmeritocratic times; it's a matter of going through the motions of equal access at the same time you're frantically trying to game the system."
So naturally, i agree and am drawn in.
The whole chapter Prurient Interests is a great one. If we used a clear common word like "dirty" this legal definition of obscenity that includes prurient sounds ridiculous. That was what i gathered, but the author and i may have different experiences with regard to how the whole chastity thing (purity culture?) affected us.
Beleaguered Infidels was a bit embarrassing. He didn't grow up in the church setting i did - they threw around infidel all the time. His ignorance of jihad may have been just characteristic of the early 2000s, but he could've done better.
In Foreign Parts, he's not bothered by journalists messing up "exotic" Arabic place names, which comes off a bit racist. He notes the French do fine with it. I would ask him, then why let us off the hook??
P121 Orwellian!! People just discussed this attempted adoption by the right a bd how they don't even mean 1984-esque. This article discusses how the term means 1984 dystopia rather than like Orwell the socialist.
P135 Where the Left Commences- as interesting a discussion now as in 2003.
P166 Discussing patriotism (always interesting) and how Abbie Hoffman at the HUAC was arrested for wearing a US flag shirt and now pro war demonstrators dress in all manner of flag paraphernalia. "...hard to tell a patrotic demonstration from a gathering of Oakland Raiders fans." He concludes by saying bring back the term, but I disagree. I always like essays of what patriotism is to us.
P165 Still in The Last Refuge of Scoundrels and Other People, it's funny that he gets that McCarthyism held every left wing activity un-American but he appears to have a disdain for "tantrums of flag burning" during the Vietnam war protests.
P168 Pledge Break. As with patriotism, there's plenty of material to mull over in the pledge. Like "under God." Why it was added and how the pledge resembles the loyalty oath southerners had to swear. And the French phrase that was nixed. Mostly it's fine that no one knows what it means definitively. "As Eric Hobsbawn once observed, patriotic rituals are indebted to provide the emotional signs of membership in a club, not its bylaws."
P175 Rush Limbaugh's Plurals. Well, something he thinks isn't racist definitely is. White men aren't good at assessing that. But the main point is good on tv vs radio.
There's an interesting if dated assessment of the Internet in the early 2000s. It's kind of cute. Funny to read 20 years later. It's not all wrong, but a lot has changed. Also he asserts pretty offensively that people who put stuff online in blogs and such don't have a life.
---
Other than some racism and odd, outdated notions like America still rewards dedication and hard work, this is still a fun look at how the meanings of words change or can mean contradictory things through time.
More...